Case Note & Summary
In 1995, the Supreme Court disposed of a batch of cases relating to appointment of ad hoc doctors in the U.P. Provincial Medical and Health Service. The posts were governed by recruitment through the Public Service Commission (PSC), but from 1961-62 onwards ad hoc appointments were made de hors the rules. Some doctors retired; some obtained court orders regularising their services from initial appointment dates which became final. PSC selections were made in 1972 and 1974; candidates from the 1974 selection were recommended in three lists dated 23.12.1977, 16.6.1978 and 10.5.1979. Disputes arose between PSC-selected candidates and ad hoc non-selectees. The Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.1995 directed appointment and seniority among these categories, but certain non-selected ad hoc doctors claimed they had not been served and filed I.A.s seeking clarification/review. They contended that under the U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointees (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, they were to be regularised and their seniority under Rule 7 should date from appointment after selection; they argued PSC-recommended candidates not yet appointed could not be made senior. The State and direct recruits resisted, arguing that PSC-recommended candidates should rank above non-selectees. The court reiterated settled law that ad hoc appointments de hors rules do not confer seniority rights; seniority accrues only from date of regular appointment according to rules. The court clarified the earlier order by dividing it into three parts: first, retired doctors get notional seniority only for pensionary benefits; second, 1972 PSC selectees rank senior to all ad hoc appointees; third, candidates in the 1977 and 1978 PSC lists rank below 1972 selectees in order of merit, and candidates in the third list dated 10.5.1979 rank above non-selectees. The court observed that the Ad-hoc Rules were made on 14.5.1979, after the third list, and the regularisation process under Rules 3,4,5 and 7 would take time; hence non-selectees could not claim dry seniority over third-list PSC recommendees. The court further directed that the rule of reservation and roster must be followed in all appointments and seniority determinations, including among non-selectees. It noted that some direct recruits were made junior to non-selectees and promotions were given overlooking their claims; after drawing seniority lists, appropriate steps for appointments or promotions should be taken according to rules. The court also stated that this order covers all candidates, including those who obtained independent court orders, and directed the government to determine inter se seniority within four months. Intervention and impleadment applications were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Ad hoc appointments de hors rules - Constitution of India, Article 309 and U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointees (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, Rules 3, 4, 5, 7 - Ad hoc appointees de hors rules do not get seniority from initial appointment; seniority only from regular appointment according to rules. The court reiterated settled law that ad hoc appointments made de hors rules confer no rights and seniority counts from date of regular appointment. The doctors were appointed de hors rules from 1961-62 onwards, hence only those with court orders or regularisation under 1979 Rules could claim seniority. Held that non-selectees cannot claim seniority over PSC-recommended candidates. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Seniority - Direct recruits versus ad hoc non-selectees - U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointees (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, Rules 3, 4, 5, 7 - Seniority of PSC-selected candidates from date of appointment in order of merit; ad hoc non-selectees seniority after regularisation under Rules. The court clarified that candidates recommended by PSC in lists dated 23.12.1977 and 16.6.1978 rank below 1972 appointees in order of merit, and candidates in third list dated 10.5.1979 rank above ad hoc non-selectees regularised under 1979 Rules because the Rules came on 14.5.1979 and regularisation process would take time. Held that non-selectees cannot claim dry seniority over the third list PSC selectees. (Paras 3-4) C) Service Law - Reservation and Roster - Appointment and Seniority - Constitution of India, Article 16 and U.P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointees (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 - Rule of reservation and roster must be followed in appointments and seniority. The court directed that inter se seniority among all categories including 1972, 1977, 1978, 1979 selectees, retired doctors, court order beneficiaries, and non-selectees must be determined according to rule of reservation and roster. No deviation from rules of appointment and reservation is permissible. Held that government must follow roster points for SC/ST/Backward Class candidates in all appointments and seniority. (Paras 4-5) D) Service Law - Seniority - Clarification of Earlier Order - Supreme Court Practice and Procedure - The court clarified its earlier order dated 23.03.1995 to remove ambiguity in seniority determination. Directions: third list PSC selectees rank above non-selectees; non-selectees seniority determined as per Ad-hoc Rules after regularisation; all seniority lists to be drawn within four months. Held that earlier order does not give advantage or detriment to non-selectees not heard, but clarification ensures fair application. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc appointees de hors rules can claim seniority from initial date of appointment; whether candidates recommended by PSC in 1977, 1978, 1979 lists should rank senior to ad hoc non-selectees regularised under 1979 Ad-hoc Rules; whether earlier order dated 23.03.1995 needed clarification regarding seniority of third list PSC selectees vs non-selectees; whether rule of reservation and roster must be followed in determining inter se seniority and appointments; whether non-selected ad hoc doctors were entitled to be heard before disposal of earlier order.
Final Decision
The court dismissed intervention and impleadment applications. Clarified earlier order: 1972 selectees highest; 1977 and 1978 selectees next in merit; third list 1979 selectees next; then non-selectees regularised under Ad-hoc Rules with seniority as per Rule 7 and roster. Directed government to determine inter se seniority within four months according to directions and rule of reservation/roster. Also appropriate steps for appointments/promotions according to rules. Contempt petition not separately adjudicated.
Law Points
- ad hoc appointments de hors rules do not confer seniority rights
- seniority counts from regular appointment according to rules
- initial appointment according to rules counts seniority from initial date
- direct recruits seniority from date of appointment in order of merit
- rule of reservation and roster must be followed in appointments and seniority
- non-selectees cannot claim dry seniority over PSC-recommended candidates
